JUDGMENT The facts relating to the present case are - Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt (for short “the Mutt”) Tirupati was the absolute owner of Ac.3.80 cents in Sy.No.396 and Ac.4.62 cents in Sy.No.435 aggregating to Ac.8.42 cents of land in Kattamanchi Village, Chittoor Mandal and District. This land was initially leased out to one M. Pachiappa Mudaliar by way of a public auction conducted on 10.09.1971 for an annual rent of Rs.1700/- for a period of six years and the same was approved by the then Commissioner, Endowments Department. Since the said M. Pachiappa Mudaliar defaulted in payment of lease amount, O.S.No.344 of 1975 was filed by the Mutt in the District Munsif Court, Chittoor, for recovery of lease amount and possession of the property. While the suit was pending disposal, Sri M. Pachiappa Mudaliar inducted the petitioner into the possession of the land by way of an unregistered agreement dated 19.12.1979. After coming into possession of the land, the petitioner obtained a fresh lease with the Mutt for a period of six years from 19.12.1979 to 18.12.1985 on an annual lease amount of Rs.4525/- and the same was approved by the Commissioner, Endowment Department, by proceedings in L.Dis.No.A2/18920/80-2, dated 22.04.1980. The petitioner is said to have paid the arrears of Rs.17,427/- against the lease amounts payable by Sri M. Pachiappa Mudaliar and this payment was also said to have been ratified by the Commissioner, Endowment Department, by proceedings dated 29.04.1980 and permission was granted to withdraw O.S.No.344 of 1975 and the same was also withdrawn by the 3rd respondent-Mutt. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner sought to purchase the land, by way of private negotiations, and the Assistant Commissioner, who is the in-charge of the Mutt, by letter in Roc.No.226/1982-A, dated 25.03.1982 had recommended the case of the petitioner to the Commissioner, Endowment Department for purchase of the land at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre. After due consideration, the Commissioner Endowments, had issued proceedings in Roc.No.M2-24149/82, dated 04.05.1982 granting approval for purchase of the land under Section 74(1) of the 1966 Act. The notice under this provision was also published in the A.P. Gazette and in Andhra Prabha Daily News Paper on 08.06.1982. After due consideration, the Commissioner Endowments, had issued proceedings in Roc.No.M2-24149/82, dated 04.05.1982 granting approval for purchase of the land under Section 74(1) of the 1966 Act. The notice under this provision was also published in the A.P. Gazette and in Andhra Prabha Daily News Paper on 08.06.1982. Thereafter, the property was sold to the petitioner under private negotiations in accordance with the stipulations in A.P. G.O.Rt.No.1427 Revenue (Endowments-III) Department dated 24.08.1982, and the proceedings of the Commissioner in Roc.No.M2/24149/82 dated 09.09.1982 and the orders of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 14.10.1982 in W.P.M.P.No.10901 of 1982 in W.P.No.3621 of 1982 apart from the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner in-charge of the 3rd respondent-Mutt dated 25.10.1982. All these proceedings had then culminated in execution and registration of a deed of sale dated 29.10.1982 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chittoor as document No.7208/1982. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner and two others approached the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.9903 of 2015 to declare the proceedings of the 4th respondent including the property in the list under the prohibitory register under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1980, on the ground that these lands belong to the Mutt. This writ petition along with a batch of writ petitions was disposed of by a Division Bench of the Hon”ble High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh by an order dated 29.01.2016 with the observation that these issues were covered by the Full Bench judgment passed in W.A.No.353 of 2015 and batch dated 23.12.2015. In accordance with the directions passed in that judgment, the petitioner is said to have made a representation to the Commissioner for NOC to be issued for the subject land. 4. As the Commissioner, Endowments was not passing any orders on the representation of the petitioner made in pursuance of the directions in Writ Appeal No.353 of 2015, C.C.No.2337 of 2016 was filed. 4. As the Commissioner, Endowments was not passing any orders on the representation of the petitioner made in pursuance of the directions in Writ Appeal No.353 of 2015, C.C.No.2337 of 2016 was filed. At the same time, the 3rd respondent-Mutt filed O.A.No.394 of 2017 on the file of the A.P. State Endowments Tribunal, Guntur on the ground that the sale of property in favor of the petitioner in the year 1982 was based on a false statement made by the petitioner and that the sale had been carried out in collusion with the then Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, who was in-charge of the Mutt. 5. The Commissioner had then issued Memo No.M1/26631/2016 dated 03.04.2017 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of NOC on account of the pendency of O.A.No.394 of 2017 before the Endowment Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 6. Dr. Majji Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that O.A.No.394 of 2017 was filed, before the Endowment Tribunal, after the impugned order was passed on 03.04.2017. In the circumstances, the 2nd respondent could not have deferred the issuance of NOC till the disposal of an O.A which had not yet been filed by them. He submits that such a decision is clearly arbitrary and requires to be set aside. 7. The 3rd respondent-Mutt, has now filed written instructions. In the written instructions it is stated that the property in question belongs to the 3rd respondent-Mutt and since the said land was sold in collusion with the Assistant Commissioner, who was the in-charge of the Mutt, and on the basis of the false statement by the petitioner that he was a tenant of the property, the said sale deed has to be set aside and the land would have to be reverted to the 3rd respondent-Mutt. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be granted NOC. Consideration of the Court: 8. The admitted fact in the present case is that Ac.8.42 cents of land in Sy.Nos.396 and 435 of Kattamanchi Village, originally belonged to the 3rd respondent-Mutt. Subsequently, this land was sold to the petitioner in 1982 by way of a registered deed of sale. In 2017, the Mutt filed an application before the Endowment Tribunal contending that the sale made to the petitioner is invalid and requires to be set aside. 9. Subsequently, this land was sold to the petitioner in 1982 by way of a registered deed of sale. In 2017, the Mutt filed an application before the Endowment Tribunal contending that the sale made to the petitioner is invalid and requires to be set aside. 9. As the above lands had been included in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the petitioner approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.9903 of 2015 which was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of a common order dated 29.01.2016. This order while summarizing the directions of an earlier order of a Full Bench dated 23.12.2015 in writ appeal No.343 of 2015 and batch, had issued certain directions. The effect of those directions would be that it would be open to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent for deletion of the property of the petitioner from the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 provided the petitioner could demonstrate that the relevant property is not covered under clauses (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. 10. 10. Section 22-A (1) reads as follows:- “22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents.- (1)The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely: (a) documents relating to transfer of immoveable property, the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State or Central Government; (b) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immoveable property owned by the State or Central Government, executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so; (c) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10 years in respect of immoveable property, owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or by Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so; (d) agricultural or urban lands declared as surplus under the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; (e) any document or class of documents pertaining to he properties the State Government may, by notification prohibit the registration in which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal, Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are likely to adversely affect those interests” 11. In the present case sub-clause (a) (b) (d) would not be applicable in any manner. Sub-clause (e) speaks of registration of documents pertaining to properties which the State Government by notification may prohibit registration. No such notification is relied upon in the present case and hence sub-clause (e) would not apply. This would leave sub-clause (c). A reading of sub-clause (c) would show that the prohibition from registration in relation to any document would apply if the said document is in respect of immoveable property owned by religious and charitable endowments governed by the provisions of Act 30/1987. 12. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the property is not owned by the Mutt, as a registered deed of sale has been executed in favour of the petitioner, in the year 1982. 12. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the property is not owned by the Mutt, as a registered deed of sale has been executed in favour of the petitioner, in the year 1982. At this point of time, there is only a claim made by the Mutt for cancellation of the deed of sale and the same is pending before the Tribunal. 13. As the Mutt cannot claim to be the owner of the property at this point of time, the prohibition of Section 22-A (1) (c) would also not apply. 14. In the circumstances, the order of the Commissioner Endowments Department deferring consideration of the application of the petitioner for deletion of the property from the prohibitory list, cannot be sustained. It is not as if the Mutt is without a remedy in such a situation as the matter is already pending before the Endowment Tribunal. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as set out in the present judgment and pass orders expeditiously, and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand pending closed.